God Disproved

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Krumple
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 06:10 pm
@richard mcnair,
richard_mcnair;145395 wrote:
ah yes being a fool. One of the greatest evils of science is giving people the illusion that they know far more than they do.


So you are insisting remaining ignorant as you are is a better choice? To totally bash science without knowing or understanding any of it. I know that you have because you make the common mistake when you say this;

richard_mcnair;145395 wrote:

You cannot personally even disprove the idea that the stars are just little dots of light just a few miles outside the earth's atmosphere, or that the sun spins round the earth (unless you have a space rocket and we can go up and look for ourselves).


You completely miss something called geometry. Not only that but light itself. But first and foremost, small objects and close proximity would not move how the stars move. It is impossible. Not only that but small object would be constantly under the gravitational forces of the sun and other planets like Jupiter. There would be no way for them to be locked into their position that we see them in. All you have to do is some simple basic math and you can determine these objects are not small nor a few miles away. It is basic science and you fail miserably at your question. So no, you do not need a rocket to understand stars.

Before you try to undermine science why not learn something first about it then talk?
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 07:02 pm
@spiltteeth,
spiltteeth;145784 wrote:
Well I still really don't see how something can come from nothing.

Even the great skeptic David Hume admitted that he never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something might come into existence without a cause.

Really I don't think it's even intelligible. What can be meant, for example, by the claim that there is a mathematical probability that nothingness should spawn a region of spacetime "where none existed before?"
It cannot mean that given enough time a region of spacetime would pop into existence at a certain place, since neither place nor time exist apart from spacetime. The notion of some probability of something's coming out of nothing thus seems incoherent.

. A pure potentiality cannot actualize itself. In the case of the universe (including any boundary points), there was not anything physically prior to the initial singularity.4 The potentiality for the existence of the universe could not therefore have lain in itself, since it did not exist prior to the singularity.

Quantum vacuums have no physical particles but are filled with electromagnetic waves.

However, there was NO vacuum casually prior to the bigbang, there was nothing.

the expansion cannot even be visualized from the outside -there being no "outside," just as there is no "before" with respect to the Big Bang

Four of the world's most prominent astronomers described that event in these words:



As Barrow and Tipler emphasize,

I really don't have an hour to watch the vid, I have heard of Lawrence Krauss. He himself, as far as I know, has only had one peer reveiwed paper publiahed which I've not read, but he's constantly cited - usually the author will say "and some Physistics get VERY desperate - see Lawerence Krauss"

Anyway, according to the Bigbang the universe is a closed system but Krauss may be referring to Quantum gravity theory, which defines things differently. So far there is no coherent quantum gravity theory BUT if there is one day it could explain alot.

It;s a theory by Davies. Davies presents a scenario which, he confesses, "

He has reference to a quantum theory of gravity according to which spacetime itself could spring uncaused into being out of absolutely nothing.

While admitting that there is such a theory

However this is misleading. As Davies admits,

But quantum gravity is so poorly understood that the period prior to 10[-43] sec, which this theory hopes to describe

In fact, there seems to be no good reason to think that such a theory would involve the sort of spontaneous becoming ex nihilo which Davies suggests.

But there seems to be nothing in this which suggests the possibility of spontaneous becoming ex nihilo.

IF originally absolutely nothing existed, then why should it be spacetime that springs spontaneously out of the void, rather than, say, hydrogen atoms or even rabbits?

Davies on one occasion seems to answer as if the laws of physics are the controlling factor which determines what may leap uncaused into being:

Your into philosophy so you probably know more then I but to me this seems exceedingly peculiar.
Davies seems to attribute to the laws of nature themselves a sort of ontological and causal status such that they constrain spontaneous becoming.
But the laws of physics do not themselves cause or constrain anything; they are simply propositional descriptions of a certain form and generality of what does happen in the universe.

It is futile to say it somehow belongs to the nature of spacetime to do so, for if there were absolutely nothing then there would have been no nature to determine that spacetime should spring into being!

Either the necessary and sufficient conditions for the appearance of spacetime existed or not; if so, then it is not true that nothing existed; if not, then it would seem ontologically impossible that being should arise out of absolute non-being.
To call such spontaneous springing into being out of non-being a "quantum transition" or to attribute it to "quantum gravity" explains nothing; indeed, on this account, there is no explanation. It just happens.

Hope this helps! Smile


Yes! it does. I need to do more research into this, and I will get rid of the entire infinity argument until I have some good science to base it on, or I will just add a big IF in front of it Smile

I'm really glad I could get someone with advanced knowledge of physics on here, I was wondering if you would mind if I had any other questions (related to physics and QM) If I could just PM you and not litter this thread with unrelated questions. Just let me know through the PM system.

And thank you again for your information; I'm always excited to learn more. The most updated version of this thread is in my blog, but I don't know if I can edit that forever or if it has an edit time limit as well. :perplexed:

Again, I really appreciate your criticism, and your willingness to explain these things to me.
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 07:03 pm
@pondfish,
pondfish;145479 wrote:
Author of this thread is an IDIOT. So is all humans existed or going to be existed.

Humans and IDIOTS are synonymous.

You can't prove speculation in either way.

Words only lie.

OP has lots of energy but he fails to ask right question.

It is not about proving (agree) or disproving (disagree)...

It is about your mind. Is it clear?. Is it over cooked?.

GOD is a belief , you can't prove either way. It will continue to exist on people who wants them. It will not exist in people who do not wants them.

Our thoughts exist for a microsecond....it may not exist next second...

All these are useless waste of time..masturbating with beliefs.

Quit it humans.Smile


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOdspqh8M8k

sorry, I couldn't resist that one. Very Happy
 
pondfish
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 12:09 am
@Theologikos,
You really can't win against me. I know all defense mechanism of humans. They are weak.

I am teflon and i do not exist in a way.

You are just wasting time. Again all humans are wasting time in their own way.

if you want to see grammer mistakes or english blah blah...that is what you see. Narrow mind will see narrow mind in everyone.

You can only mirror what you have. There is no other way.

If i abuse you , more you react with abuse...i keep doing it ...you will react with by repeating same words i utter in order to win the argument.

That is human natural course of action. Weak!.

Question is the key.

But again young minds learning new stuff can not see it. As learning new beliefs and labels and growing is most important thing.

Once all done, come back to me and beg human. Hahahaha,

Always think in extreme situation and not in comfy of couch , that is the only way you can see limits of any argument.

Ask questions, never agree or disagree. :detective:
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 12:21 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;145615 wrote:
[CENTER]:bigsmile:
[/CENTER]
i Believe God would cheer Y P reading this thread .

i Am Sure !

Pepijn Sweep
ud Jisper Veldt
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 06:19 am
@pondfish,
pondfish;146012 wrote:
You really can't win against me. I know all defense mechanism of humans. They are weak.

I am teflon and i do not exist in a way.

You are just wasting time. Again all humans are wasting time in their own way.

if you want to see grammer mistakes or english blah blah...that is what you see. Narrow mind will see narrow mind in everyone.

You can only mirror what you have. There is no other way.

If i abuse you , more you react with abuse...i keep doing it ...you will react with by repeating same words i utter in order to win the argument.

That is human natural course of action. Weak!.

Question is the key.

But again young minds learning new stuff can not see it. As learning new beliefs and labels and growing is most important thing.

Once all done, come back to me and beg human. Hahahaha,

Always think in extreme situation and not in comfy of couch , that is the only way you can see limits of any argument.

Ask questions, never agree or disagree. :detective:


Win what?! You have to make some sort of coherent argument first. All I've seen is that you are an alien and I am a weak human. You should notice that this thread is not to disprove god, but to change what people's perception of God is. I thought you aliens were good at seeing those things. :/ :whistling:
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 07:15 am
@Theologikos,
Theologikos;146113 wrote:
Win what?! You have to make some sort of coherent argument first. All I've seen is that you are an alien and I am a weak human. You should notice that this thread is not to disprove god, but to change what people's perception of God is. I thought you aliens were good at seeing those things. :/ :whistling:


[CENTER]
Let's receive God's Son next week and kick out the alien fish.

It are our God's to defend and attack. To love and hate. We established bounds over the centuries, over the peoples, over the continents...

We are capable & strong. Your thread will make us one and cut of your resources, your communication with your imaginairy god(s). You will experience loneliness and get no sympathy.

Unless U bow 4 Humanity, Hermes & Sophia 3 Times.

Friendly Goodbye,


Pepijn Sweep
Ox:bigsmile:xQ
[/CENTER]
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 11:18 pm
@Theologikos,
THIS THREAD IS DISCONTINUED.
IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS THREAD FURTHER GO TO MY BLOG AND WE CAN CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION THERE.[1]
IF YOU ARE VIEWING THIS THREAD, GO TO MY BLOG FOR THE MOST UPDATED VERSION. (I believe I can edit my blog indefinitely)

IF YOU *MUST* ADD A COMMENT, PLEASE COPY THIS TO THE END OF IT.
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR CRITICISM AND HELP. esp. splitteeth.
[1] http://www.philosophyforum.com/blogs/theologikos/857-god-disproved-revison-under-scrutiny.html


I am not yelling.

:bigsmile:
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 03:04 am
@Theologikos,
Theologikos;146508 wrote:
THIS THREAD IS DISCONTINUED.
IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS THREAD FURTHER GO TO MY BLOG AND WE CAN CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION THERE.[1]
IF YOU ARE VIEWING THIS THREAD, GO TO MY BLOG FOR THE MOST UPDATED VERSION. (I believe I can edit my blog indefinitely)

IF YOU *MUST* ADD A COMMENT, PLEASE COPY THIS TO THE END OF IT.
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR CRITICISM AND HELP. esp. splitteeth.
[1] http://www.philosophyforum.com/blogs/theologikos/857-god-disproved-revison-under-scrutiny.html


I am not yelling.

:bigsmile:


Dear Theologikos,

It's not the thread which is discontinued, it's your contribution to it.

Like the Blog...

With Regards,

PepI the Whaler
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 08:26 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;146565 wrote:
Dear Theologikos,

It's not the thread which is discontinued, it's your contribution to it.

Like the Blog...

With Regards,

PepI the Whaler


Well I haven't stopped. I'm adding to the blog, and I try and think up new things each night. But school work is getting kind of heavy so It might take some time. I stopped the thread because I want people to be directed to the editable blog.


THIS THREAD IS DISCONTINUED.
IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS THREAD FURTHER GO TO MY BLOG AND WE CAN CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION THERE.[1]
IF YOU ARE VIEWING THIS THREAD, GO TO MY BLOG FOR THE MOST UPDATED VERSION. (I believe I can edit my blog indefinitely)

IF YOU *MUST* ADD A COMMENT, PLEASE COPY THIS TO THE END OF IT.
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR CRITICISM AND HELP. esp. splitteeth.
[1] http://www.philosophyforum.com/blogs...-scrutiny.html


I am not yelling.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 11:52 am
@Theologikos,
Theologikos;146659 wrote:
Well I haven't stopped. I'm adding to the blog, and I try and think up new things each night. But school work is getting kind of heavy so It might take some time. I stopped the thread because I want people to be directed to the editable blog.


THIS THREAD IS DISCONTINUED.
IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS THREAD FURTHER GO TO MY BLOG AND WE CAN CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION THERE.[1]
IF YOU ARE VIEWING THIS THREAD, GO TO MY BLOG FOR THE MOST UPDATED VERSION. (I believe I can edit my blog indefinitely)

IF YOU *MUST* ADD A COMMENT, PLEASE COPY THIS TO THE END OF IT.
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR CRITICISM AND HELP. esp. splitteeth.
[1] http://www.philosophyforum.com/blogs...-scrutiny.html


I am not yelling.

What music are you listening to ?
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2010 06:48 am
@ikurwa89,
ikurwa89;145504 wrote:
Imagine, while you were sleeping and then someone came and kidnapped you and put you on this island?

What kind of questions will run through your head? You are a curious animal, you like to seek answers to things.

I bet one of your questions would be "who put him here", "why am I here" etc... These topics tend to attract intellectual people, I can see from your post, that these sort of discussions tend to damage you more than educate you.

So why don't you go about your day, believing in fairytales and stories made up while some of us who actually are keen and motivated to seek truth.

If everybody thought like you, we would still be living in caves eating God knows what for breakfast!

Pondfish. I do have nice receipes if U;R in to fish for break-fast.
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 09:25 am
@Theologikos,
@ no one in particular,

http://www.philosophyforum.com/blogs/theologikos/857-god-disproved-revison-under-scrutiny.html#comment3581

(for some reason my hyperlink wasn't working)
 
spiltteeth
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 05:42 pm
@Theologikos,
Hey Theologikus.

Couple things, out of all the thousands of Christian Theologians and philosophers over the centuries ONLY ONe has ever defined omniscient to mean God could do anything - Decarte.
And theists in general from Judaism to Muslim have NEVER done this.
Omniscient means all powerful in the sense of God having the maximal powerful attributes, and being maximally powerful.
This is how the vast majority of theists have understood God's omniscience for the past 3,000 yrs.

CS Lewis's point is correct, if God could make a square circle it would no longer be a square, so the sentence is incoherent (sense-less)
Just like if someone were to ask "Can God make a married bachelor?" Well, then they would NOT be a bachelor - this is logically incoherent
Or can God make a rock so heavy etc
No information is being conveyed here - they are incoherent (meaningless) sentences.

The common Theist defines God as an all-powerful, all-loving, eternal, immaterial, personal being.

God, being eternal, never began to exist, therefore He needs no cause.
Casually prior to the BigBang there was no time, after God exists in time (the "eternal present")
I really don't know why this is a problem. Time flows one way.
I have no idea what "negative time" or "backward flowing Time" means - but I'll simply ask for the evidence that this exists.

Also you say "Time had a beginning and will have an end."

This is incorrect, time had a beginning but time, from our current best knowledge, will go on forever, as the universe expands indefinitely.

God, being immaterial, obviously doe snot exist in space.

As I said before, God existing in a timeless sate could bring about the existence of the universe co-temperaneously so the cause would be simultaneous with the effect (simultaneous cause and effect)

I still didn't watch the video but the guy is probably saying that because all the energy in the universe is perfectly balanced that means there is a net energy of zero.
Then he says that means there is NO energy in the universe!
So something didn't come out of nothing - nothing came out of nothing!
This is absurd though - just because I have a jar of electrons and a jar of protons and they balance each other out doesn't mean they don't exist!
Or that if I have 20 bucks and owe 20 bucks the money doesn't exist!
To believe this you must believe the universe is NOTHING I don't exist, you don't etc
Nothing is the absence of anything so to say "Nothing is active" is incoherent.
And quantum particles do NOT come out of nothing but a quantum soup (plus those particles only exist in time inversely proportionate to there mass - a split second, not 13 billion yrs)

But say he's correct - that then means the universe needs NO MATERIAL cause.
But, as Chris Irsherwood points out it would still need an ontic cause - a productive cause.

If he's gonna postulate the universe is open (no evidence for this) then he must account for how THAT universe (or whatever) came into being.

I think its truly absurd to believe it, but even if you do, you still need an efficient cause - spacless, timeless, because all space and time came into existence at the bigbang, immaterial, and personal.

Even then you'd have to account for all the physical constants etc

I think theist would just say "well, thats God!"

Also you would have to say "well, time created space, and then space created time"
which is like saying the chicken created the egg then the egg created the chicken"

The physics may be fine, even if speculative, but the interpretations drawn are quite incomprehensible to my mind, full of philosophical and metaphysical absurdities...

Hope this helps!
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/19/2019 at 12:04:29